Sustainable mobility and (de)integration of land use and transportation development in Russian cities

Saveleva Ekaterina O. ORCID: 0000-0001-9038-4922 PhD in Architecture and Urban Planning, Senior lecturer, Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Perm National Research Polytechnic University Komsomolsky ave., 29, Perm Krai, Perm, 614990, Russia eosaveleva@gmail.com

Introduction

For the first time in the current edition of the Transport Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2030, "increasing spatial connectivity and transport accessibility of territories" is called as the main goal of the development of the transport system. This much broader and multicomponent task shifts the focus from population mobility, a priority of the previous 2008 strategy, to accessibility of places, in full accordance with current trends in the transition to a more sustainable model of urban mobility, which have been gaining momentum in cities around the world since the beginning of the millennium ^[1].

The concept of sustainable mobility, which appeared at the end of the last century as part of the global ideology of sustainable development, suggests a shift in emphasis from increasing the speed of movement to increasing the accessibility of places of attraction for the population ^{[2, 3]}. While traditional methods and approaches to urban mobility management are more focused on road transport, forecasting and traffic management, as well as minimizing travel time, sustainable mobility is an alternative approach to transport infrastructure management that focuses on creating an accessible and convenient environment for all types of movement. At the same time, increasing the accessibility of places of attraction is provided not only by improving the transport network, but also by increasing the proximity between objects, which, in turn, is achieved due to the compactness and functional diversity of buildings - characteristics of urban space regulated by a competent land use policy ^[4].

Thus, the indicated change of priorities in the Transport Strategy, on the one hand, indicates that Russia has recognized at the national level the need to move to a more sustainable model of development in the field of transport and reduce the negative impact of the transport complex on the environment. On the other hand, the Strategy, developed primarily by transport experts, indicates "improving the environmental class of rolling stock" as the main methods for achieving the tasks set, ignoring the importance of effective coordination between planning in the fields of transport and land use.

Meanwhile, the understanding of the need to integrate transport planning and land-use planning in order to achieve more sustainable, that is, economically successful and environmentally sound solutions, has long been established in both scientific and professional communities ^[5]. Such integration is especially important for Russian cities, whose planning structures bear traces of the Soviet period: unreasonably stretched urbanized territories, peripheral clusters of high density and an underdeveloped transport network ^[6].

The importance of coordinating development strategies in the field of transport and land use is confirmed by the experience of European cities ^{[7, 8]} and is gradually being implemented in the most progressive Russian ones. However, it is not easy to move from rhetoric to reality, and the population of most cities continues to face problems related to the inability to harmonize urban development in the areas of transport and land use, including the growing discrepancy between the demand for travel and transport services. This article aims to identify factors that hinder the full integration of transport and land use systems, including the imperfection of the regulatory framework and the existing system of territorial development planning, as well as difficulties encountered in the implementation of integrated solutions laid down in the plans.

Regulatory framework for the integration of urban land use and transport systems

The document that should provide the basis for linking planning in the fields of transport and land use in Russia is the Urban Planning Code. Until 2014, the Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation did not include such an activity as transport planning. The current version provides for the development of such a document as the "program for the integrated development of the transport infrastructure of a settlement, urban district" (PKRTI), which establishes lists of measures for the design, construction, and reconstruction of transport infrastructure facilities of local significance of a settlement, urban district. The SCR is a short-term planning document, as well as a tool for the implementation of the master plan and, in the event of a change in the master plan, should be brought into line with these changes. The PCRTI, therefore, cannot influence the decisions laid down in the master plan and in any way strengthen the integration between transport and land use in the city.

The document of transport planning, which in its scope and content could solve the problem of integrating solutions in the field of transport and urban planning, is the Integrated Transport Scheme (CTS). The first CCTS in Russian cities were developed back in the Soviet period and were mandatory, unlike their post-Soviet counterparts, which acted as a recommendation for the future. Integrated transport schemes have traditionally been based on specially conducted research and surveys and were the result of an in-depth analysis of the current operation of the transport system and sound plans for the development of the city's transport system ^[9]. However, the CCC in its status has never been equivalent to territorial planning documents, did not undergo the procedure of public hearings and remained internal documents of city administrations. Today, most integrated transport schemes act as research projects, their results can be used to develop/adjust the master plan or simply ignored. In addition, with the advent of new documents (in addition to the PKRTI, this is also the CSODD - a comprehensive traffic management scheme - and CSOT - a comprehensive scheme for organizing public transport services), cities completely abandon the development of the CCC.

An important aspect of the integration of planning in the field of transport and land use is the synchronization of such planning over time, i.e. the development of mutually agreed documents defining the development of these two areas. This can be ensured by the mandatory development of an integrated transport scheme, preceding the adoption of decisions laid down in the general plan of the city; then the CCC, in fact, is included in the justification materials ^[10]. An alternative approach introduced by the Urban Planning Code and now established in the practice of cities is the development of all documents related to urban mobility, in development of the provisions of the master plan as a detailing of the decisions taken during its development ^[11]. At the same time, the latter assumes the availability of an up-to-date version of the master plan, i.e. the development of an absolutely new comprehensive document, or its deep processing, which, due to the complexity of the process, is not always possible and in many cities is replaced by a simple adjustment in terms of changing the functional zoning of the city.

Table 1 provides an overview of the master plans of the studied cities and transport planning documents developed in the post-Soviet period. The table shows that the development of integrated transport schemes of the largest cities in some cases preceded the development of the master plan. At the same time, some cities (Novosibirsk, Perm) partially used the results of the analysis conducted in the CCC in the transport section of the master plan, while others (Kazan, Krasnoyarsk) incorporated fundamentally new solutions into the master plans without reference to previously developed CCC. In other cities, the development of an integrated transport scheme was either not carried out at all in the post-Soviet period, or was not synchronized in time with the development of the master plan, and the recommendations given in these research papers were not reflected in the territorial planning documents. It can also be seen from the table that the PKRT appeared in all major cities after 2017, in some cities (Kazan, Chelyabinsk, Voronezh, Krasnodar), programs were developed on the basis of newly approved master plans and were linked to the activities laid down there. Simultaneously with the development of programs, mathematical transport models appeared in most cities. However, all these models include only data on transport infrastructure and public transport routes, do not take into account the impact of land use and allow for a purely engineering approach to measuring street capacity, traffic congestion, route network efficiency, etc.^[12] They take current or proposed land use models for granted, ignoring the reverse impact that transport interventions they may have an impact on spatial development. Therefore, despite the relevance and scientific validity of the PCRTI, the measures laid down in them do not entail changes in urban land use and cannot serve as a tool for integrated territorial and transport planning.

Table 1. Overview of territorial and transport planning documents in the largest cities of Russia

Thus, in the absence of a scientifically sound transport development strategy linked to territorial planning, many cities act reactively when placing transport infrastructure: plans appear in response to initiatives of federal co-financing within the framework of certain programs, and public transport route networks in some cities are formed under the influence of carrier companies. Thus, there is a situation in which master plans are often devoid of sufficient justification for making transport decisions, and transport planning documents without planning transformations cannot offer effective ways to solve transport problems.

Master plans of Russia's largest cities and their implementation

The document of the local level, in which, first of all, urban planning and transport policy should be integrated, ensuring an acceptable level of accessibility for existing and prospective territories, is the General Plan of the municipality. However, an analysis of the Master Plans of Russia's largest cities has revealed a significant number of negative examples of the lack of coordination of transport plans with plans in the field of urban planning and land use.

One of the most controversial examples of territorial and transport planning is the Russian capital Moscow. The 2010 master Plan was shelved shortly after its approval due to the change of the mayor of Moscow. Urban development planning was actually in "manual mode", in which each project was considered individually by a special commission until 2017, when a new zoning law was approved. The rules of land use and development of the city of Moscow, created without any strategic document as a support, have defined their own goals, including the large-scale development of transport hubs ^[13]. This emphasis on the development of public transport was expressed even earlier in 2011 in the Moscow Transport Strategy, which was allegedly developed taking into account the latest trends in transport planning ^[14]. The strategy included measures such as the construction of new metro lines in combination with a major infrastructure project of the Moscow Central Ring, the introduction of intermodal solutions for tickets and fares, the introduction of paid parking, etc. The introduction of the Moscow Central Ring, a modernized route using the existing railway infrastructure, really had a significant positive effect on the transport behavior of citizens in the form of an increase in the distance of walking approach to off-street transport stations during "peak" hours ^[15]. However, against the background of efforts to reform the transport system in accordance with the best international practices, in 2012 Moscow took a step that caused confusion among most foreign and domestic experts ^[16]. As a result of the expansion of the administrative boundaries, the area of the city has increased by about 2.4 times. Despite the fact that the 2017 General Plan for New Moscow was based on the principle of "balanced development of the territory", in practice, developers of new territories primarily focused on the construction of residential facilities, while not providing the necessary transport and social infrastructure. Despite the use of best practices in the field of transport planning, Moscow continues to implement uncoordinated and controversial spatial strategies that can undermine all efforts made.

One striking example of unjustified transport development is the introduction of underground metro systems in some of the largest cities, which dates back to the Soviet period, but still remains an aspiration for almost all major Russian cities. Of all the major cities, apart from Moscow and St. Petersburg, the construction and operation of the metro can be considered economically justified only in Novosibirsk ^[17]. However, the Master Plans of most of the largest Russian cities, where there have been varying degrees of development of the metro system since the Soviet period, provide for their development. These cities include Kazan, Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Samara, where several stations were built during the Soviet period, and some development of the metro network took place in the 2000s, as well as Krasnoyarsk with several mothballed stations and even Rostov-on-Don, where only the project exists. Omsk has become the only one of all the largest Russian cities to deliberately abandon the development of the metro, despite the presence of several built and mothballed stations, in favor of the development of the tram network. Plans for the development of the metro could be attributed to the strategy of advanced transport development, in which infrastructure and transport services are developed and implemented in advance before there is a real need for them. However, the experience of other cities indicates the difficulties that arise in ensuring economic efficiency and uninterrupted operation of high-capacity transport, which always requires large volumes of passenger traffic and, consequently, a high concentration of people and jobs around stations ^[18].

One of the cities that also relies on the development of transport infrastructure, ahead of spatial development, is Kazan. The general plan of Kazan, based on the assumption of significant population growth, among other things, suggests providing engineering and transport infrastructure to undeveloped territories remote from the center. At the same time, the document includes the promotion of more sustainable mobility models in Kazan, based on two components: stimulating the use of public transport (priority lanes, integrated ticket sales system, development of ground electric transport, etc.) and preventing travel by private transport (paid parking). Thus, the decisions laid down in the General Plan of Kazan seem quite reasonable and coordinated from the point of view of land use and transport, but only if the projected population growth occurs in reality.

There are also many examples of the opposite situation, when the master plan lays down the development of territories without taking into account the existing and future traffic load, and the construction of cities with high population density occurs in places that have poor accessibility to public transport and are not supported by appropriate infrastructure development. Extensive high-density residential development on the outskirts of cities currently creates a high demand for transport in places where it cannot be satisfied in any other way except by a personal car, examples of this can be found in St. Petersburg (Rusanovka microdistrict), Samara (Krutye Klyuchi microdistrict) and other cities.

At the same time, even reasonable proposals and documents drawn up in accordance with the latest concepts in the field of transport and urban planning may not bring the desired result in the absence of proper implementation. An analysis of the implementation of the Perm 2010 Master Plan, a document that became revolutionary for its time, including in terms of applying the principles of sustainable mobility, showed that the spatial development of Perm did not go according to the laid–down scenario. The planned distribution of population density by districts was to be the result of a consistent policy of the city authorities aimed at stimulating the reconstruction of existing houses, the development of the central part of the city, and the rejection of the development of additional territories outside the urban core. In fact, the planned level of building density in the central part of the city, the most equipped with transport infrastructure, was not achieved, and the density values in areas without high transport accessibility exceeded the forecast values. The inability of local authorities to adhere to the initial territorial development strategies outlined in the plan has led to a growing discrepancy between the levels of transport provision and the levels of population density, that is, the number of potential users of the transport system. Thus, Perm has become one of the examples of how efforts to integrate urban development in the areas of land use and transport have been undermined by improper implementation of the plan.

Master plans as a way to enhance the integration of land use and transport

In conditions when the existing system of territorial planning is criticized due to its inability to fully ensure the planning of integrated and sustainable development of the city, it is increasingly proposed as a solution to embed master plans into the structure of urban planning documentation as a tool for more rapid response to dynamic changes taking place in the city^[19].

The master plan can become a document combining the stages of urban planning and sectoral transport design based on a citywide analysis of transport systems in conjunction with the development of the city's planning structure. As an integrated urban planning tool, the master plan, along with the master plan, can contribute to the coordinated placement of residential areas and workplaces, minimizing the need for long transport movements, as well as ensure the development of an efficient and sustainable transport network. At the same time, a shorter planning period makes master plans more flexible and adaptive to rapidly changing conditions in the urban environment, including changes in transport infrastructure and land use needs. Thus, in master plans focused on the medium term, it is easier to ensure the integration of land use and mobility.

However, the condition for the effectiveness of the master plans is still the implementation of the planned activities. Delays or inconsistencies in implementation, including due to improper allocation of resources, can lead to the loss of favorable time windows and the loss of opportunities for sustainable development ^[20].

Conclusion

In modern cities, the integration of transport planning and land use is an integral element of a sustainable urban development strategy. The main components of the spatial structure of the city: land use and transport systems continuously influence each other, and attempts to manage each of the systems separately lead to their inefficient functioning. Transport and land use in most Russian cities, as a rule, continue to function as separate worlds. These two areas of territorial development have their own institutions, disciplinary and cultural characteristics, planning procedures and concepts. At the same time, if the culture of urban land use management with the help of master plans and land use rules of development has firmly established itself in the practice of city administrations that have increased their respective competencies, then transport development planning has not received such a systematic approach and clear implementation mechanisms, especially at the strategic level.

The regulatory framework for the integration of land-use and transport planning, including the system of territorial and transport planning documents, should provide a framework for the development of specific strategies aimed at bringing these two areas of development closer together. However, an analysis of the existing system has shown that planning for the development of urban transport and land use systems is often carried out in isolation, and development projects are not synchronized in time and space.

In a situation where master plans, which serve as a key tool for shaping the spatial and transport structure of cities, are not able to ensure operational coordination of planning in the fields of land use and transport due to the long planning horizon, master plans can act as an effective alternative, increasingly attracting the attention of both the professional community and the authorities in an attempt to improve the practice and legal foundations of territorial planning. However, the effectiveness of master plans, as well as master plans, largely depends on proper implementation, including timeliness, allocation of resources and compliance with all aspects of the plan.

The problems of separation of land-use planning and transport planning identified in the article emphasize the need for continuous attention to this issue and the adoption of appropriate corrective measures. The focus on ensuring sustainable mobility in cities should find its place not only in strategic documents on a national scale, but also in documents at the urban (regional) level. At the same time, the general approach to urban development planning should also change: from making sectoral decisions to integrated transport and urban planning. A comprehensive and systematic approach to the coordination of transport policy and land use is a key factor for building cities that can effectively cope with the challenges of increasing motorization and ensuring sustainable ecological balance.